As often is the case, the grim reality behind the decline of our society is that it is mundane. There are no exotic causes; human weakness outweighed common sense, and then power was handed to the democratic herd which proceeded to ruin everything through its tendency to project wishful thinking over reality. When democracy seems like a good option, your society is already exhausted of energy and is merely looking for a compromise."We have no one to blame but ourselves." By Brett Stevens, Amerika, 1/8/16.
There is no complexity to this. Our society grew, it prospered, and then it faced disasters. The Mongol invasion. The Black Plague. But mostly, it faced its own prosperity. People no longer had to prove they knew what they were doing in reality. They only had to become popular enough that others would nod and say, sure, he’s a good fellow.We need look no further than that. We succeeded, and as is the nature of success, we were challenged by others. While our best fought off the threats, our worst gathered and plotted. Then they had their revenge, and took over, and although it took them two centuries, by the 1990s they had control, and since then, they’ve run our society into the ground.
Instead, we should take responsibility for our past. We made a boo-boo. We accepted the equality of all people in lieu of demanding that people prove themselves through creativity, loyalty and real-world results. As a result, we were overrun by incompetents.
All of the people blaming The Jew&trade, The RichTM or other scapegoats are concealing this fundamental truth: we did this to ourselves by accepting equality as a notion. Even if we destroy all of those scapegoats, our problem remains. We have to fix the problem, or it ends us.
Friday, January 8, 2016
Your quotidian quote for the day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Having no appreciation for the creed of the Declaration of Independence, of its stated principles, rationale, and courage to living accordingly, we have taken our stand in quicksand.
We, the citizenry, must be the stewards of our selected leaders.
When we fail this responsibility, we flail miserably.
Now, again, the Tree of Liberty must be watered the hard, painful way.
Our children will pay for our neglect and sins.
How will we demonstrate our expiating remorse?
I agree. The Declaration was never debated by or offered to any of the states or the public at large. It's an excellent recitation of the abuses that were suffered by the colonists but the rest is froth and it drew the line in the sand for all to see. The Constitution was the distillation of the considered views of leading men and is what was ratified by the states. It was the second draft of the Articles not the Declaration. Lincoln was mischievous, to understate it, when he spoke of the Declaration as calling forth a new nation.
We're busy trying to prove that we can get something for nothing, that economic results can be determined by wishful thinking, that all people, races, and cultures are the same, that killing babies is a moral method of birth control, and that judicial and executive discretion are an improvement over the rule of law. As that old fake butter commercial used to go -- "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature." Actually, we're not . . . and will pay the price.
An essential problem was relinquishing our personal citizen's responsibilities to our representatives without our maintaining timely oversight.
Our representatives did not maintain our best interests in their governance. Our neglect cascaded into greater and greater defects in our social, economic, religious, and political lives.
Now, from near-mummification, we must engage life with strife.
Was not the DoI unanimously agreed to in writing by representatives of the 13 colonies in the 2nd Continental Congress after debate and revisions of the original draft?
It was effectively debated by the citizenry: 1/3 opposed, 1/3 were neutral, and 1/3 supported the DoI and its consequences with their lives.
Thank God and Man for minorities of truth, virtue, and action!
It's a fascinating question to think how the anti-Federalist objections might have been addressed more completely. The vagaries of nullification could have been made clear in a provision allowing for a majority of the states to reject any federal legislation. The possibility of the federal cat getting out of the bag did not seem to occur to them, or, if it did, they mistakenly thought that the Bill of Rights was sufficiently prophylactic. Thank God for the BoR but it was not enough.
The giant mistakes of the Framers were to place their trust in the morality of the citizenry, not putting explicit limits on the franchise, not allowing for secession, not providing for recall of federal officials by a majority of the states, not providing for recall of the president by a majority of the citizens, and not making amendments easier. The latter is a bit scary but we ended up with amendments springing from the fevered imaginings of the Five Ninths so another easier mechanism might have been preferable.
Additional provisions relating to ballot integrity and public tallying would have been good too.
You've got me on the approval of the DoI. I think it was delegates of the colonies who approved it. Still, it didn't go to the people though it's not certain they would have taken much of a red pencil to it. The "created equal" part might have not fared that well in the south but who knows?
Col.,
I'm curious about the photo of the lady on the ground. I can't tell if those bobbies (they appear to be British cops, based on their hats and uniforms) are assisting the woman or restraining her. She looks to be bruised or scraped on her left shoulder and I can't tell if that is a jacket she is clutching or if she was disrobed in a rape, assault, or whatever. Do you know the story that goes with that photo?
Post a Comment